Slashdot Mirror


State Senator Caught Looking At Porn On Senate Floor

Everyone knows how boring a debate on a controversial abortion bill can get on the Senate floor. So it's no wonder that Florida State Sen. Mike Bennett took the time to look at a little porn and a video of a dog running out of the water and shaking itself off. From the article: "Ironically, as Bennett is viewing the material, you can hear a Senator Dan Gelber's voice in the background debating a controversial abortion bill. 'I'm against this bill,' said Gelber, 'because it disrespects too many women in the state of Florida.' Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

86 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. Florida by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it is safe to say we earned our Fark tag the hard way.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Florida by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speaking of Fark, I think this "News story" is somewhat beneath the standards of Fark.

      A politician otes to invade our personal privacy? Zzzzz. A politician sides with corporate interests against the public at large? Zzzz. A politician makes a stupid incorrect statement about sciences, history, geography, or technology? Sometimes interesting. A politician is caught with his pants down in some way? ZOMG NEWS!

      Leave that line of thinking with cable news and tabloids.

  2. I don't see what the big deal is by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Funny

    You liberal nerds are just jealous you don't have female coworkers sending you naughty pictures.

    1. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by lorg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nude? Where? Looks to me like they are all wearing some kinda bikini. Some of them might be or are possibly topless but atleast one of them isn't. Is this what is concidered to be porn in Florida these days?

    2. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by Sleepy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, they're only "nude" if you consider a bikini nude.. in which case you are delusional.

      The picture CLEARLY shows bikinis (even the ones that were partially black-boxed are obviously bikinis).

    3. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have/are, what's the diff?

      The diff here is, dickless or not, what he did is against policy, may be illegal, and is certainly disrespectful of the entire state that is paying for his time and has to live under the decisions he participates in making.

      Doesn't matter whether it was b00bies or reruns of Curb Your Enthusiasm. When a State Senator breaks the rules it's as if he thinks the law means nothing, and that is the picture next to the entry for Hypocrisy in the dictionary.

  3. Porn..... by Dthief · · Score: 4, Funny

    now available in SEC and Senator flavors.

    --
    www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
  4. Hardly qualifies as porn by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Risque or naughty, maybe. Still, the guy should have been paying more attention to his job.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Jeng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      being topless in most places is not an actual crime.

      It only becomes a crime when women go topless for money in public.

      You can show it for free in public, or charge in a private place, but you cannot charge if you're showing it in public.

      Considering those laws I would say that that shot of women with their bikini tops moved to the side would not be porn, unless they were paid for it.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe he already made up his mind how he wanted to vote?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Asking a senator to pay attention?

      Next, you will ask they actually read and understand the bill they are voting on...

      You forget how this country works.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes.

      Now, do YOU understand that the image was:

      A) Of Bikini-clad women. Not nude, and not even (as TFA falsely states) topless.

      B) E-mailed to the Senator uninvited and unannounced, with a deceptive filename.

      C) Sent by a female co-worker.

      Basically, it's looking more and more like this Senator got Punk'd.

      But hey, let's not let a few facts get in the way of a salacious story! This IS /. after all.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    6. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by kramerd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pornography is material with little or no artistic merit. Under obscenity laws, yes, porn is illegal. Or to be more accurate, sexually explicit material is only illegal if it's porn (this one off those squares are rectangles arguments), but pornography is not necessarily sexually explicit.

    7. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by shadowrat · · Score: 2, Funny

      The wet dog tips the balance to porn.

    8. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that it was sent via e-mail can easily be backed up with mail server records, which will be released if needed.

      While this senator is obviously not the most technically astute, he does at least grasp the basic concept that all of his internet traffic is running through some kind of web proxy server:

      When asked if he ever looks at pornography while on the Senate floor, Bennett responded, "You'd have to be insane to do that. It all goes through a server. I don't think anybody would be doing that."

      And then there is the fact that he closes it within seconds of it appearing on his screen, and if you look at the application open immediately behind the image, it's quite obviously an e-mail client.

      From the evidence available from the video, I see no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    9. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by kramerd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      You must have studied math at the Barack H. Obama School for the Mathemagically Challenged (BHOSMC). I counted 54 states in your total (47 plus 7 exceptions).

      Did we suddenly annex 4 new states I don't know about?

      Nope, you are just illiterate.

      California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas are the states in which it is not illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public.

      47 states protect the right to breastfeed.

      Thanks for playing.

    10. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by radtea · · Score: 2, Informative

      from "pornos" meaning, you guessed it, "evil".

      Nope. Pornoi were low-class prostitutes in ancient Greece. "Pornography" means "whore's writing", more-or-less.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  5. A setup by Rurik · · Score: 5, Informative

    Purely a setup. Notice how the presence of a black bar insinuates that it's covering something offensive? If you look at the picture, there's all fully clothed, the straps to their tops are visible, including the top themselves under and above the bar.

    He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time... but there is no porn here.

    1. Re:A setup by characterZer0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Honestly, I would rather my senetor spend his time in the Senate looking at pictures of pretty girls than voting or cramming pork into every bill he can find.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:A setup by mi · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time...

      Actually, not even that is automatically wrong.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:A setup by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Damned skippy. About the least harmful thing a Senator can do on the Senate floor is to look at porn. Given their innate gift of being able to fuck up anything up to and including a wet dream, I'd even rather they be having a full on circle jerk than doing what they've been doing. It wouldn't be near as big of a national embarrassment as the shit they've been passing as law.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    4. Re:A setup by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time

      Whereas reading Slashdot on a private employer's time is perfectly acceptable.

    5. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not really, here is the original image (for all intents and purposes)
      http://img157.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=00376_0460_ff2009-darksand1-3001_123_939lo.jpg

      Very poorly made bikinis.

    6. Re:A setup by ChikMag777 · · Score: 5, Informative

      NSFW

    7. Re:A setup by Pigeon451 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually it's not the EXACT image, since the poses are SLIGHTLY off (look at the head tilts). But it is obviously from the same sequence of images. /pedantic mode

    8. Re:A setup by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2, Funny

      And by God, as a taxpayer, I'm never going to pass up an opportunity to be outraged over nothing!

  6. Missing the Point by Reason58 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the fact that it was "pornographic" is missing the point. This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

    1. Re:Missing the Point by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

      My question is: "Isn't his vote pre-decided by his political party?"

    2. Re:Missing the Point by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then why is it important that he pays attention?

      Why is it even important that he actually goes to the voting?

      He could simply send a memo saying "This year I vote whatever [party leader name] votes" with the exact same result.

      Everything else is self delusion.

    3. Re:Missing the Point by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's primarily because they are in full lock down right now due to their deep minority status. Unity is their only hope for stopping the opposition, even on bills that the individuals disagree with the party on. When there is some wiggle room in the balance of power certain legislators are able to put their vote counter to the party because it won't matter. The democrats did exactly the same thing when they were backed into a tight minority in the 90s. Welcome to the game that is American politics.

      Wait until the census comes out and the gerrymandering begins! Then we'll see some gamesmanship.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    4. Re:Missing the Point by Straif · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you list off these numerous filibusters? And quoting Obama doesn't count.

      For 7 months the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority, meaning the Republicans could not filibuster any bill/motion even if they wanted to.

      The oft cited cloture stat is next to meaningless as cloture and filibuster are not directly linked.

      A filibuster is a tool use by the minority party to prevent a vote. Which as already pointed out was impossible for Republicans to do without Democratic support for at least 7 months.

      Cloture, on the other hand, is a tool use by the majority to close off further debate. This could be because of a filibuster or simply because they just don't want to discuss the matter further.

      And if you want to talk about improper actions taken in the Senate, the Democrats win this round hands down. To protect their filibuster proof majority and to help push their agenda forward, they violated the rules of the Senate which they themselves demanded previously by allowing the interim Senator from Mass. to continue to vote even after Brown had won the seat. The rules of the Senate clearly state that in the conditions present at the time newly elected Senator Brown was legally permitted to hold his seat and vote the day the election was completed and he was recognized as the winner; and the Senate rules specifically don't even require State certification. The Dems actually held several votes after the election in Mass. and prior to them recognizing Brown (at least 17). Previous, the Republican majority had recognized Democrat winners of special elections the following day, even when important legislation was on the floor.

      Of course you could also extend the improper actions to the very appointment of a interim Senator to fill Kennedy's vacant seat since the Dems had to change a law THEY PUT IN PLACE just a couple years before to even do that. But I guess that was on the state level and not the federal so that's ok.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    5. Re:Missing the Point by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do know that the Republicans introduced at least 4 health care reform bills (all of which were short enough to read and understand)? You do know that when the Republicans wanted to negotiate on the "stimulus bill", Obama's answer was "I won"? Further, were you aware that a national bill on education was one of George W. Bush's top priorities when he was elected (before 9/11), so he asked Ted Kennedy to write the No Child Left Behind Act (when Republicans were in the majority)?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  7. Doggie porn? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Looks innocent enough to me. If I were an American (or even a human being), I would be inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, whatever else I might think of him. He's obviously not spending time trawling through hardcore sites - his friend just needs a NSFW tag.

  8. Sad by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The saddest part is that the repercussions of these actions wouldn't be the same if he was browsing any other, not job related, content.

  9. Re:Hmm... by characterZer0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you have a filtering system that can identify pornography inside a video file inside a zip archive?

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  10. I Don't Think So by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Purely a setup. Notice how the presence of a black bar insinuates that it's covering something offensive? If you look at the picture, there's all fully clothed, the straps to their tops are visible, including the top themselves under and above the bar.

    He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time... but there is no porn here.

    I disagree. If you zero reference the women from left to right, women one and three have no visible straps that would hold the top part of their bikinis up. While it's still possible they had something around their chests, I don't know what would be holding up so little material. I do agree that he was just opening up an NSFW e-mail sent him to him and it didn't look like he was "viewing" it as it seemed to be closed as soon as his brain registered what he was looking at. Three seconds and then closing the window is not really "looking at porn" in my book. Accident at best. Even Slashdot has embarrassed me at work.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I Don't Think So by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no porn; the prudish sects of America are showing up for this one.

  11. Not Porn by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't look like porn to me. It looks like art. I know it's hard to believe, but pictures with nudity are not necessary pornographic!

    1. Re:Not Porn by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not when one is a Republican, the party of (check their anti-sex, anti-personal-freedom-other-than-Second Amendment) voting record before modding me) the Christian Taliban.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Not Porn by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't look like porn to me. It looks like art. I know it's hard to believe, but pictures with nudity are not necessary pornographic!

      I agree, but tell that to John Ashcroft, Jesse Helms, most of the GOP, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who now wants to modify the State Seal, because the Roman goddess Virtus has a bare breast.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  12. Hate to defend the guy. . . by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . but it looks like he might be telling the truth. The video doesn't let us see how long it was up or how he opened the picture, but when he closes the browser, you can clearly see Firefox's download window open. It certainly looks like he had opened the photo as an email attachment.

    Plus, he's using Firefox. Are you guys really going to pick on him after realizing that?

    --
    My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  13. Bingo by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bingo. It seems to me like the bigger "crime" is that he's not paying attention to doing his job. He'll then have to vote on that issue, and I'm hard pressed to imagine how watching bikini babes or dog videos is going to help him make an informed choice.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Bingo by necro81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his constituents.

      If that were true, then there would never be any debates, and legislation could be done entirely by popular referendum.

      Maybe it's different where you are, but around here, we vote for legislators not just for their currently held views, nor just for how well their views jive with our own, but also because they demonstrate some capacity to think, and be able to sift through thoughtful arguments and separate the insight from the crap, and then to act on our behalf.

    2. Re:Bingo by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his contributors.

      FTFY. Really when it comes to abortion most people have their minds already fixed on a position... politicians even more so. This topic galvanizes people based on philosophy, religion, or affiliation lines. Like everyone else in the room he already knows how he will vote on the issue, and nothing short of the new "Mike Bennett Turnpike" will change his mind.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:Bingo by shadowrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      His job is to vote yes or no. It's actually not a hard job. I'm not certain he needs to or should be paying attention to do his job well. The R behind his name implies he's going to vote against abortion. It's not his responsibility to listen to the other side of the aisle and all their arguments. His job is to vote the way he thinks the people who put him there want him to vote.

      whether or not these guys should be paid so much to do such an easy job is up for argument.

    4. Re:Bingo by MadnessASAP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!! Heeeeheeheeeehee! Whooeee, that just made me laugh.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    5. Re:Bingo by medcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happens on the floor is not debate. It is a series of speeches for the consumption of voters. The actual debates happen in committee rooms as the bills are marked up (not written; that happens sans debate) and in the halls as favors and votes are traded. This seems to be true of every legislative body in the US above the town hall level.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    6. Re:Bingo by MiniMike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his constituents.

      Easy. His lobbyists had already told him how to vote.

  14. It was a reply... by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

    She sent it in response to his "tits or GTFO" text message.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  15. Lowering standards by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you call that porn?

    Come on, folks. We've got bukakke, DP, water sports and more. That photo isn't more than R-rated.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  16. PORN ? by dindi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am sorry, I know I am from Europe, where being topless is just the norm sometimes even in a park, but calling a picture of 5 topless women PORN is a little bit of an overreaction.

    I am not saying, that everyone viewing your private crap behind you in congress, and watching this kind of crap on any meeting is right, but it is not PORN.

    Besides, he is at work. How many of us looked at this article/video at work? Well, then I guess we cannot throw the 1st stone at him.

  17. OMG America Can't Be That Uptight by xednieht · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was nothing on that screen that you would not see on any beach outside of the U.S. aside from the black censorship bar covering their tits.

    And besides, the more time politicians spend looking at porn the less time they have to fuck up the country.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  18. Give the guy a break... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It looks like he opened up the mail and then closed it right away. That stuff happens, even at work. People have sent me NSFW things before without warning that I've opened up and -quickly- closed.

    Also, since when is a row of girls wearing swimsuits (maybe a few are topless) 'porn'?

    Give the dude a break.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  19. Republican by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bennett is a Republican. His Republican Party would send us all to jail for watching porn at our own jobs. Indeed, Florida Republicans would have us all locked in stocks and publicly flogged by some priest for it, if they got the theocracy they're working on.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Republican by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans, hyperbolically. Democrats (like all politicians) are bad, so Republicans, who are catastrophic, must be no worse than Democrats.

      Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.

      No, this is not really hyperbole. The Republican Party is America's Taliban. And fallacies like false equivalency is keeping them at work on their theocracy.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans

      What false equivalence? Democrats can't stay out of your wallet and Republicans can't stay out of your bedroom. I fail to see how accepting governmental intrusion into one part of my life offsets the removal of government intrusion from another.

      Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years.

      The Republican Party is America's Taliban [google.com].

      That's real cute, linking to Google searches like that. Did you know that Barack Obama kicks puppies? It's true.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Republican by medcalf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bush certainly held the (absolute dollar, not inflation adjusted) record for overspending. Until Obama's first year, where he outspent Bush's 8 years in just his first. The rest of your comment is even less useful, so I'll just leave it at that.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    4. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That false equivalence. Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.

      You mean wars like Vietnam and deregulation like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the repeal of Glass–Steagall? Oh wait, those happened under Democratic administrations.....

      And they invade your bedroom, too.

      And Democrats invade my wallet, gun cabinet, phone records, radio stations, etc.

      Democrats are not at all equivalent, even if they do also waste your money - but not nearly the vast, crippling magnitude of Republicans.

      Careful, your bias is showing.

      You Republicans have wallowed in false equivalencies for so long

      "You Republicans"? That's interesting, I start out by pointing out that both parties suck and you leap to the conclusion that I'm a Republican. From my vantage point you have more in common with partisan Republicans than you probably realize.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Republican by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doc, you better pray a civil war never happens. THEY have more guns than you. So stop the hate speech already!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Republican by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except the facts show that Republicans, by a significant majority, want the country ruled by religious laws. Here's just a sample of their positions on issues ruled by what they think their bible says, rather than the Constitution:

      Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
      Yes 26
      No 55
      Not Sure 19

      Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?
      Yes 7
      No 77
      Not Sure 16

      Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?
      Yes 11
      No 68
      Not Sure 21

      Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?
      Yes 8
      No 73
      Not Sure 19

      Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
      Yes 77
      No 15
      Not Sure 8

      Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
      Yes 31
      No 56
      Not Sure 13

      Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
      Yes 34
      No 48
      Not Sure 18

      Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?
      Christ 67
      Other 15
      Not Sure 18

      But I wasn't even talking about Republican Party members, but Republican officials. If you read the many supporting pages to which I linked about "American Taliban", you'll see that those officials are theocrats.

      False equivalence. There is nothing actually "Communist" about Democrats, nothing anywhere near as severe as the truth about the Republican Party and its actions. "They're both as bad" is a lazy judgment, when the facts show the difference between "bad" and "intolerable".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Republican by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hyperbole much? That's like saying that the Democrats would happily send bankers to the gulag for short selling investments, while they short sold investments as well, if they could only get the full-on fascism they are striving so hard for.

      From my observations of American politics, the Republicans are far, far more interested in implementing Fascism than the Democrats are. Indeed, to the casual observer it seems that's their Raison d'être.

    8. Re:Republican by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Informative

      That time period you mention also happens to be Bill Clinton. With Bush on either side creating all time record deficits. Reagan before that terrible as well (obviously...). Jimmy carter didn't make anything better or worse. Ford sucked. Nixon didn't fuck anything up. Lyndon Johnson broke a bit above even.

      Dems: 1 great, 1 good, 1 even
      GOP: 1 terrible, 3 bad, 1 even.

      http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

    9. Re:Republican by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      My country of birth has several political parties and I still don't understand how a country as big as the US can only have two.

      Duverger's Law.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Republican by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.

      MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

      But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.

      Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).

      Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Republican by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should also probably be noted that most of the money we spent on TARP has already been payed back or is expected to be payed back in the near future. Also, we didn't end up spending even half of the $700 billion originally allocated to the program.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    12. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      That time period you mention also happens to be Bill Clinton. With Bush on either side creating all time record deficits. Reagan before that terrible as well (obviously...). Jimmy carter didn't make anything better or worse. Ford sucked. Nixon didn't fuck anything up. Lyndon Johnson broke a bit above even.

      Dems: 1 great, 1 good, 1 even

      GOP: 1 terrible, 3 bad, 1 even.

      http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

      First, in defense of Reagan, you obviously don't remember the absolute mess the country was in when he took office. Maybe you weren't born yet. I remember mortgage rates well over 18%. I remember unemployment and inflation at double digits. I even remember something called the "Misery Index". Reagan's spending brought this country back from brink of becoming another Greece.

      Now, on to the rest of it.
      Congress controls the purse strings. Why not look at the deficit cross referenced by the party in control of Congress?

      Also, I noticed that you conveniently left out the current administration that has the tripled the deficit spending of GWBush. It's incredibly staggering when you consider that it took Bush eight years to do 1/3 of what Obama did one.

      Consider the following:

      First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989 ...
      President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.)

      So, if you think Reagan was "terrible", then you must think Obama is Satan himself. I'm really surprised you didn't mention it. Unless, you don't want to make your side look bad by presenting all the facts. So much better to only cherry pick the stats that back up your side.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    13. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.

      Um, as a "Doc", you can read right? Go read The Constitution and report back to me with which branch of the government controls spending.

      In the mean time, here is a graph showing the party in control of congress vs the deficit. It came from the article here (so you can check the references and data).

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    14. Re:Republican by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives. Which is why Libertarians rule! Sure, they are selfish, mean-spirited little gnomes, but at least they are honest about it.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    15. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.

      MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

      But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.

      Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).

      Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.

      I agree and even take it a step further. In order to not "break all sorts of "social programs"", the feds could convert all current marriages to civil unions. Problem solved.

      I only say that because there are certain "benefits" that are afforded to married people like child custody, power of attorney, and so on. There needs to be federal and state recognition of the union currently called marriage. I believe everyone would be happy if you just changed the name. Civil Unions have no religious significance. If you want to get "married", go to a church, chapel or where ever you want and get married by whoever you believe is qualified to stand there and say, "You're married". It will just carry no legal weight.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    16. Re:Republican by jwhitener · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can you link to some numbers? That Obama's first year cost more than Bush's 8 years and two wars doesn't sound right.

      http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/cost-of-the-bush-era-11-point-5-trillion.aspx

      Under Bush, total spending appears to have been near 11.5 Trillion.

      Some people, like the conservative heritage foundation, say Obama's total spending will be somewhere near 10.3 trillion, Over a Decade though. Not in one year.....
      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54400

      Were you perhaps thinking of total deficit rather than spending? That is true, the deficit right now under Obama is larger than it was under Bush. But that is because he inherited so much, and is betting that 'fixing' health care will lower the deficit over time.

    17. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Funny

      Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.

      So let me get this straight, a batshit crazy liberal is telling everyone what the "core" of the Republican party is, right? Like you have any fucking idea what Republicans want. Tell you what. How about if I, a Republican, say that Democrats are Stalinists who want to ban religion entirely, lock up religious leaders, arrest the leaders of any party they disagree with? Would that be fair? How about if I found sources that backed me up. Do you really think I would have a hard time finding prominent Democratic leaders that want to see the Pope arrested or "see Bush frogmarched"? Would that make me batshit crazy? You bet it would. So, go back and read your posts again and tell you are not batshit crazy! My God man! You linked to a poll by the Daily Kos as evidence. Don't you know those guys are batshit crazy too? Is that really who you look to for truth?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    18. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice job dodging the issue.

      I haven't read the source link, but I'd assume that the question was probably asked in the context that McCain is likely to die before his term would be up. In that case, it's a very important question.

      And even if that wasn't the context -- the belief that Palin is more qualified, when she can't answer hard-hitting gotcha questions like, "what newspapers do you like to read?" is hilarious. And there are people who really do believe this.

      --Jeremy

      And Biden telling a man in a wheel chair to stand up and take a bow was very telling as well. Not just because that Biden is a fucking idiot, but what kind of idiot picks him to make his campaign look better? And Obama was known for stepping on his dick every time he tried to speak without a teleprompter.

      The point is that every politician stumbles on what should be an easy issue. On paper, both candidates, Palin and Obama have roughly the same number of years experience. The differences are that Palin's experience was executive at a local and state level while Obama's was legislative at the state and federal level. Which carries more weight, executive experience for an executive job or federal experience for a federal job?

      I think of this way. You are hiring for an IT job. Who would you hire, a person from another company with IT experience or someone who already works for your company with no IT experience? Of course, that's my opinion. I'm sure yours differs. Either way, all experience weighted equally, Palin and Obama have roughly the same amount of experience. That's fact. Numbers don't lie. The difference, as I stated before, Obama was running for President. Palin was running for Vice President. I would say that Palin was more experience for her job than Obama was for his.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    19. Re:Republican by glitch23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except the facts show that Republicans, by a significant majority, want the country ruled by religious laws. Here's just a sample of their positions on issues ruled by what they think their bible says, rather than the Constitution:

      The country already is ruled by religious law to some extent: thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. Murder and burglary are against the law. Why aren't you all riled up about that? Constitution doesn't say anything about murder or stealing but yet we have laws for them.

      By the way, we know what the Bible says so including in your post "what they think their Bible says" is a transparent attempt at discrediting them. Nice try but it didn't work. Those Republican officials' views are shared by a vast majority of the country's citizens. It just goes to show you that despite what the minority don't believe in, the majority of the population still enjoy and prefer having religion as a large part of their lives. And the side benefit is that those who disagree are welcome to do so as long as the laws of the land are still obeyed by all.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    20. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The top tenth of 1% of the population receives half of every available dollar of income (almost as much as the bottom 50%). The question is whether they are paying "more" like they were 30 years ago, prior to income taxes becoming more regressive, before their share of the national income quadrupled while the average American lost ground.

      I mean, is it a good thing that 300,000 Americans quadrupled their incomes, and pay less tax on that money today than they would have 30 years ago? To the "less tax" crowd that may sound like an ideal world. But, is that ideal when, at the same time, average income dropped 10%?

      In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He got elected and proceeded to make income taxation less progressive. The result has been as described above.

      But, if the average American asks the same question Reagan did, he's accused of being a "deadbeat," "wanting something for nothing."

      I won't go into details on the massive deficits Reagen wracked up, the destruction of environment, the elimination of a great deal of government funded basic scientific research, etc.

    21. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the majority of people on this forum consider you to be a crazy right-wing troll. That you don't realize this is quite amusing.

    22. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have any evidence for your claims? How does Democratic=supported regulation of industries that influence the fate of our economy in any way related to "fascism"?

      Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63% of GDP.

      Mussolini himself said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Do you not see how the formation of super-large corporations and their increasing influence on government politics is equivalent to the invasion of fascism? Can you not see how the break-up or regulation of these extremely large corporations is akin to fighting the creep of fascism?

      Who was it on the Supreme Court who voted to give corporations equal rights to people? What presidents in the last century attempted to break up giant corporations? From the Republican side only Teddy Roosevelt was anti-trust, and eventually he was shunned from his own party.

  20. That's NOT Porn by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just breasts.

    Bloody puritans.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  21. Re:Hmm... by a_nonamiss · · Score: 4, Funny

    You allow users?

    --
    -Arthur
    Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
  22. Defense by mseeger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hi,

    It goes against any emotional bone in my body, but i have to vigorously defend a politician.

    • First: He has not been caught watching any porn. What he watches does not even approach event the most bigoted defintion of porn. If that should be porn, than i would have spent several vacations in a porn camp without noticing.
    • Second: For doing something else during a boring speech, he has my complete understanding. This makes him do his job neither better nor worse. The speeches are no longer part of the political process. It is more important for a politician (in order to get elected) to kiss some babys or his contributors asses than to give eloquent speeches in parliament. The voters are even more desinterested in those speeches than the politicians.

    By borrowing the headline unchallenged, /. is participating in a witch hunt. Even on this site i suspect several readers not to look at the material and to remember just the headlines. I hereby petition Slashdot to change the headline to "State Senator falsely accused of Looking At Porn On Senate Floor".

    CU, Martin

  23. Pure Fud by JM78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Point #1: There is no porn here. The women depicted, even with a blackout bar, are obviously wearing bikini tops. The blackout bar is an obvious attempt at misleading.

    Point #2: The senator obviously opened something which he immediately closed. This has happened to everyone who has ever used a computer. You are sent something, you open it, and it turns out to be something not-safe-for-work.

    Point #3: For those saying he should be doing his job, you are all guilty. Everyone, admittedly or not, has read email on their mobile device in a meeting or has, at one time or another, thought about something other than work while on the clock. To suggest that because this guy is a senator that he should be super-human to something of which we are all guilty is complete flamebait.

    Good grief, cut the guy some slack.

    --
    I am Jack's smirking revenge.
  24. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You allow your users to send and receive *.zip files?

    Oh, don't get me started on annoying ultra-paranoid email administrators and their obsession with blocking every goddamn file type known to man.

    Seriously, I'm so sick of it. I don't know how many times I've seen this email exchange between developers and clients:

    Email #1: Can you send me your configuration file so I can try to determine what's wrong?

    Email #2: Can you send me the file again, but this time change the file extension because apparently the mail server blocks XML files.

    Email #3: Okay, one more time, but this time zip the file. Apparently changing the file extension doesn't work, because the mail server sees the contents as XML and blanks it all out.

    Email #4: That didn't work either. You're going to have to send it one more time, but this time zip it and change the file extension of the zip file.

    Email #5: Praise $deity, it finally worked.

    Grrrr.

  25. Re:While cute, "Democrats did it too!" is wrong by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Funny

    Never has a person had a more appropriate user name. Can we still be friends?

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  26. Re:Hmm... by toastar · · Score: 2, Funny

    E-mail is not a large-file-transfer medium.

    Tell that to my boss

  27. Incorrect etymology by sbjornda · · Score: 2, Informative

    from "pornos" meaning, you guessed it, "evil"

    Wrong. It comes from porne meaning "prostitute". The etymology of "pornography" means "writing about prostitutes". You're probably thinking of the Greek word poneros. Writing about evil would perhaps be "ponerography" but definitely not "pornography".

    --
    .nosig

  28. Re:depends by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Politics is a game. It always has been, it always will be.

    Anyone who plays apologist/propagandist for either party is nothing more than a useful pawn. My pointing out that both sides play these games is a simple statement of fact, nothing more. I even gave another example of the games these people engage in. Yes, the stakes of these games are incredibly high, but you have to recognize that it is this adversarial approach that ultimately keeps things in balance in the long run. The greatest threats to the liberties of the people come from the people elected to serve (regardless of those peoples' actual intentions).

    Vote gridlock, every time, for the sake of all of us.

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.